18. Didn't get the Big Fish. Who do you think forced BushCo to Appoint Fitz?

Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 10:46 PM by leveymg

You do know the Agency and its institutional allies pressured Bush to allow a grand jury to be convened in the Plame case?

Why would the Administration back down and allow the empaneling of federal grand juries in the Plamegate case, the OSP-AIPAC spy case, and the Abramoff case, but not in the other -- strictly domestic -- political scandals?

The common element here is espionage connected to one or more foreign governments, resulting in massive damage to US vital interests . That the JCS, CIA, DIA and FBI will not, and cannot, tolerate. Not even from BushCo, which includes a lot of powerful old spooks.

Had Bush and Cheney refused to take the deal offered, there are miles of tapes at NSA that contain more than one might need to take down any political figure or faction in America. The tapes on this Administration are particularly grungy. Stuff that make Abu Ghraib seem like a fraternity initiation.

There are simply some things that are more powerful than the Presidency.

The NSA has the Echelon system that is currently monitoring everything we say and everything anyone else is saying electronically if it was used properly it would give whomever had control of it control of most of the world.

They don't care what we say. We don't really threaten them. Those who are wealthy, powerful, and well-connected -- and their families and close friends -- get the bugs, the band width and the file space.

Before that, it was Hoover's gumshoes listening at keyholes of celebrities, taking notes. J. Edgar invented the blackmail game, but it took the microchip and algorithm to make it really work as a tool to control the political system.

well i met goss once at the whitehouse picnic lol. No what i am saying is that i have contacts who have left the CIA from both analysis and Clandestine for the private sector because of Goss's incompetence and his stooges who actually run the agency right now (in its pathetic hobbling state) personally i think the DHS should be disolved and the OSS reactivated. that would solve a lot of problems.

25. What are your ex-CIA friends saying they're doing about this sad state

of affairs?

Is there a shadow Agency -- like the post-Halloween Massacre Assoc of Retired Intel Officers -- forming? I know several people in the National Security Whistle Blowers, but that's not quite the same thing.

Just curious about context. I have plenty of friends who are or were conservative Republicans, some who might be considered latter-day Birchers, who are deadset against this regime. I really like talking to people who aren't coming from exactly my tangent on issues. They challenge my assumptions, and I do them. It's a game I enjoy.

The situation you describe TP, I am sure has been played out in every department (see FEMA.) Our government is being run by people who hate government and want to see it fail. I've read Ray McGivern and other disgruntled agency refugees and I have no doubt the few professionals that are left are pissed.

Some time before the idea of making Goss the CIA chief, he was asked about the agency post 9/11. He said it was doing all it could and he couldn't possibly run a show like that. So what did * do? Put in charge of the show. Are we really surprised?

28. Makes complete sense, if the purpose is to hamstring your potential

rivals. The MO is to either decapitate rival organizations (e.g., CIA) or to put people in charge -- like Chertoff at DHS -- who have a personal stake in covering up past scandals. What better way to assure loyalty?

Keep in mind that BushCo isn't a political movement or even a dynasty, it's an intelligence operation, and it functions as one.

Not sure there's any real power-elite centers like that anymore. There are the big DC and Wall Street law firms, that functioned as the nation's de facto intelligence community before there was an OSS.

I would imagine such a group would need a powerful base, preferable covered by attorney-client or reporter-source privilege.

...does NOT cause me to "feel safer because Bush is president." That's just one of many reasons. I never did understand that bogus argument, and can't imagine why ANYONE (even a freeper) would really feel safer with Shrub in the White House. I feel more vulnerable on many fronts. Mainly I don't want to be left to the tender mercies of Bush's FEMA if SoCal were to have a major earthquake, but I don't feel safer in the event of a terrorist attack either.

The thought that Porter Goss is running the CIA the way "Brownie" ran FEMA is flat-out terrifying!

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.